DOCSLIB.ORG

Financing Recycling Programs and Facilities: Understanding Options and Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Financing Recycling Programs and Facilities: Understanding Options and Resources Financing Recycling Programs and Facilities: Understanding Options and Resources Introduction This document offers an overview of the current methods that local agencies use to fund their recycling programs and how the public and private sectors are financing recycling facilities. Paying for local agency recycling programs generally relies on traditional local agency approaches. Paying for recycling facilities, however, is an evolving practice that often combines public and private financing resources and has to respond to changing What is a Recycling Facility? conditions. As used in this document, recycling infrastructure refers to Funding for recycling programs is quite different from funding for a broad range of facilities that recycling facilities. Recycling programs require ongoing funding that support recycling. These include, has some level of stability even with variable markets and changing for example, facilities that collect, levels of diversion/recycling. The first section of this paper describes sort and process recyclable funding methods that are commonly used for programs, and in materials, turn organics/green particular the problems with sustainable funding in programs that waste into compost or fuels, or mask or subsidize the cost of the recycling. For facilities, it is use recycled materials in primarily a one-time investment - the building and infrastructure on manufacturing. For more the ground. This second section provides a list of funding sources, information about the types of with brief descriptions, of where agencies and private firms can go, recycling facilities see, including some more creative ideas that come from the current “Primer on Recycling Facilities.” expanded understanding of the widespread. Funding Local Agency Recycling Programs Most local agencies pay for the costs of administering their recycling programs through a combination of ways. This includes those agencies that provide the service themselves or provide it through a franchise, contract or permit system. Common approaches include one or a combination of the following funding mechanisms. This document explains each. • User fees/rates on the collection of trash, recyclables and organics/green waste. • Franchise fees on solid waste and recycling service providers. • Solid waste facility gate (“tipping”) fees. • Local agency “host” fees on recycling or disposal facilities. • Sale of recyclable materials. • Agency’s general fund. • Other mechanisms, such as locally imposed taxes. A Few Words about Propositions 218 and 26 California voters approved Proposition 2181 in 1996 and Proposition 262 in 2010. These laws affect how public agencies adopt fees and taxes. As described here, they may or may not affect the imposition of or increase in solid waste and recycling fees. Proposition 218. Proposition 218, named “the Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” requires, among other provisions, voter approval for the imposition of new, extended or increased local taxes.3 Proposition 218 also adds new requirements related to the adoption of fees for property-related services.4 Water, sewer and refuse services provided by agency employees are property-related services, and are therefore subject to these requirements. Proposition 218 requires that notice of the proposed fee be mailed to ratepayers. This notice must be sent at least 45 days before a public hearing on the proposal.5 If a majority of owners of the affected properties present written protests against the proposed fee before the end of the hearing, the agency cannot impose the fee.6 Some fees (but not water, sewer or refuse collection fees provided by agency employees) also require voter approval.7 When billed directly for services rather than as a flat fee based on property ownership, some fees may not fall under these requirements. For more information see the League of California Cities “Proposition 218 Implementation Guide,” available online. Proposition 26. Proposition 26 added a definition of the term “tax” to the California State Constitution. 8 Under this definition, certain regulatory fees that are imposed by a local government are classified as taxes, making them subject to the voter approval provisions of Proposition 218.9 Proposition 26 exempts seven types of local fees and charges. Examples of exempted charges include: fines and penalties for violations of law,10 entrance fees to government property (such as an agency-owned solid waste disposal site),11 property development fees (such as traffic impact fees, construction and grading fees),12 license and permit fees,13 and fees covered by Proposition 218.14 Solid waste and recycling fees that are subject to Proposition 218 are not considered taxes under Proposition 26.15 To learn more about this subject, please see the ILG- produced “Financing Recycling Programs: Applying Existing California Law” webinar and accompanying presentation documents. User Fees for Services Provided by Agency or Franchisee Local agencies that provide solid waste and recycling collection services themselves charge fees for the services.16 As with other fees charged by local agencies, these fees may only reflect the reasonable cost of providing the service.17 In many cases the agency chooses to not provide the service directly, but to contract with a private firm as a franchise, or have a variety of permitted haulers. Where solid waste and recycling services are provided through a franchise, the fees charged to customers are generally established in the franchise agreement.18 2 Whether or not fees for refuse collection and related services are covered under Proposition 218’s procedural requirements is the subject of some debate among attorneys because there is no definitive court decision providing clear legal guidance. • Most agree that fees charged by an agency that provides refuse and recycling collection services with its own staff are subject to Proposition 218 requirements such as public notice, but not the voter approval provisions.19 An agency must analyze which part of the fee, if any, is or is not property related. Only the portion of the fee that is property related would be subject to Proposition 218.20 • Opinions differ when solid waste and recycling services are provided by a franchisee.21 The analysis of whether the procedural requirements of Proposition 218 apply when a service is provided by a franchisee is determined by whether the agency “imposes” the fee or charge.22 Since each franchise is different, it is important to closely review the terms of the franchise agreement and the agency’s ordinance regulating refuse collection.23 • Like other local government fees and charges, Proposition 218 generally requires that fees or rates not exceed the cost of providing the service and that revenue should be used only to provide the service.24 In addition, existing law authorizes local agencies to charge fees to cover the cost of implementing the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 – also known as AB 939.25 However, agencies must ensure that the person who pays the fee receives a “service or product.” Prior to Proposition 26, some agencies charged a fee for recycling or otherwise for the purpose of reducing landfill disposal. Such a fee is now considered a “tax” requiring voter approval unless it was adopted prior to November 3, 2010 (when Proposition 26 became effective). If these existing fees are increased or extended, however, they may be subject to Proposition 26. If a local agency requires a franchisee to pay the AB 939 fee, rather than requiring the franchisee to collect the fee from the user on behalf of the agency, the fee should be evaluated in the same manner as other franchise fees to determine whether Proposition 26 applies.26 AB 939 fees that are imposed directly on the consumer by the agency and collected by the franchisee will need to fall within one of the stated exceptions or else be considered a tax under Proposition 26.27 Because of the complex nuances of these laws, and the significant timeline impact of voter approval requirements, it is important for agencies to understand them so that they can make informed decisions about their fees and methods for collecting them. Franchise Fees on Recycling and Solid Waste Service Providers California law gives cities and counties broad authority over solid waste matters, including whether the services are provided by the agency itself, or by exclusive or non-exclusive franchise, contract, permit or license.28 Solid waste matters generally include recycling services as well, except that individuals (including businesses) may donate or sell recyclable materials themselves that they have not yet discarded.29 In the 1990s, a number of cities argued that a city's recycling franchisee had the exclusive right to pick up all material that could be recycled from residents and businesses. Cities ultimately lost this 3 argument in the courts.30 The court said that (1) the California Integrated Waste Management Act did not apply to undiscarded recyclables, and (2) the owner of those materials has right to sell undiscarded recyclable materials. This means that any company (not the city's franchisee) has the right to "buy" the "undischarged recyclable materials" from the owner (business or resident). For example, a resident can take their bottles and cans down to the local recycling buy-back company rather than put them on the curb to be picked up by the city's recycling franchisee. When a local agency enters into a franchise agreement with a private solid waste or recycling company to provide services, the local agency may charge the company a franchise fee. The amount of the franchise fee is negotiated between the local agency and the franchisee. Unlike user fees (discussed in the previous section), the franchise fees are generally treated as general revenues and are not limited to use for integrated waste management activities. The writing of the franchise agreement is therefore extremely important, as it can provide the agency with increased flexibility with overall budgeting. Tipping Fees Tipping fees (sometimes called gate charges) are fees charged at a solid waste facility, such as a landfill, when a truck “tips” its load for disposal or recycling.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rates 2017.Xlsx
    Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges GENERAL Basic Gate Fee $50 per ton Minimum Gate Fee Charge for Waste $5.00 Recyclable Materials Drop Off No Charge TYPE OF MATERIAL HOUSEHOLD TRASH Up to 200 lbs. minimum Gate Fee $5.00 $0.50 each additional 20 lb. increment or fraction CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) C&D with no concrete, recyclables, green waste or chipable wood $50 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated Concrete $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated chipable wood $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Mixed C&D (household trash, recyclables, green waste and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 GREEN WASTE Lawn Clippings/Leaves, Up to 400lbs. Minimum Gate Fee $5.00 yard waste, brush, shrubs, $.0.50 each additional 40lb. Increment or fraction trees, branches, woodchips. Tree Stumps $4.00 less than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 $12.00 greater than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 Mixed Debris (Green waste, household trash,recyclables and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 ANIMALS Small (less than 25 lbs.) $5.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Medium (25-200 lbs.) $10.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Large (more than 200lbs.) $30.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee FURNITURE $5.00 minimum Gate Fee plus $4.00 per item ELECTRONIC WASTE No Charge UNIVERSAL WASTE No Charge RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE No Charge COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE Not accepted SEPTAGE Inyo $65.00 first 3,000 gallons $42.00 per additional 1,000 gallons or increment Out of County $130.00 first $3,000 gallons $84.00 per addional 1,000 gallons or increment Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges TIRES Auto & light truck $4.00 for 19" rim or less + $5.00 Gate Fee $8.00 for 20" - 24.5" rim + $5.00 Gate Fee Tractor/Heavy Equipment Tire $30 For Up to 100 lbs + $5.00 Gate Fee $40 over 100 lbs.
    [Show full text]
  • 00 Gate Fee Schedule
    EFFECTIVE Nov. 17, 2020 GATE FEE SUMMARY Walker Transfer Station / Lanfill Mono County Solid Waste Program *All prices for waste that must be transported off-site include a $20/ton Transportation Surcharge GREEN ITALICIZED TEXT = RECYCLED MATERIAL Category / Item Description Unit Cost Minimum Gate Fee ....................................................................................................................... $5.00 per load Household and Commercial Waste. “First” Garbage Can(s) (up to 82 gallons, or any portion thereof) .................................................. $5.00 Additional Cans (up to 41 gallons each, or any portion thereof) ............................................. $2.50 Mixed Waste, Generally ......................................................................................................... $11.75 per cu. yd. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Mixed Building C&D Debris -- 2 CUBIC YARD DAILY LIMIT (painted wood, furniture, drywall, insulation, plumbing fixtures, mattresses, cementitious building products, carpet, other misc. bldg. debris) ..................................................................................................................... $16.50 per cu. yd. Recyclable Building C&D Debris (un-painted lumber, engineered wood products) …$5.00 per cu. yd. Wood, Green Waste, and Similar Organics. Organics8 (clean loads of bark, hay, grass clippings, sod, tumbleweeds) ............................... $5.00 per load Wood (clean loads of prunings, brush, tree limbs and trunks less than 18”
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 the Economics of Marine Litter
    Chapter 14 The Economics of Marine Litter Stephanie Newman, Emma Watkins, Andrew Farmer, Patrick ten Brink and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer Abstract This chapter aims to provide an overview of research into quantifying the economic impacts of marine litter. From an environmental economics perspec- tive it introduces the difficulties in measuring the economic costs of marine litter; reviews those sectors where these costs are notable; and considers policy instru- ments, which can reduce these costs. Marine litter is underpinned by dynamic and complex processes, the drivers and impacts of which are multi-scalar, trans- boundary, and play out in both marine and terrestrial environments. These impacts include economic costs to expenditure, welfare and lost revenue. In most cases, these are not borne by the producers or the polluters. In industries such as fisher- ies and tourism the costs of marine litter are beginning to be quantified and are considerable. In other areas such as impacts on human health, or more intangible costs related to reduced ecosystem services, more research is evidently needed. As the costs of marine litter are most often used to cover removing debris or recov- ering from the damage which they have caused, this expenditure represents treat- ment rather than cure, and although probably cheaper than inaction do not present a strategy for cost reduction. Economic instruments, such as taxes and charges addressing the drivers of waste, for instance those being developed for plastic bags, could be used to reduce the production of marine litter and minimise its impacts. In any case, there remain big gaps in our understanding of the harm caused by marine litter, which presents difficulties when attempting to both quantify its economic costs, and develop effective and efficient instruments to reduce them.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Recovery from Sewage Sludge: the Case Study of Croatia
    energies Article Energy Recovery from Sewage Sludge: The Case Study of Croatia Dinko Đurđevi´c 1,* , Paolo Blecich 2 and Željko Juri´c 1 1 Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 April 2019; Accepted: 16 May 2019; Published: 20 May 2019 Abstract: Croatia produced 21,366 tonnes of dry matter (DM) sewage sludge (SS) in 2016, a quantity expected to surpass 100,000 tonnes DM by 2024. Annual production rates for future wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in Croatia are estimated at 5.8–7.3 Nm3/people equivalent (PE) for biogas and 20–25 kgDM/PE of sewage sludge. Biogas can be converted into 12–16 kWhel/PE of electricity and 19–24 kWhth/PE of heat, which is sufficient for 30–40% of electrical and 80–100% of thermal autonomy. The WWTP autonomy can be increased using energy recovery from sewage sludge incineration by 60% for electricity and 100% of thermal energy (10–13 kWhel/PE and 30–38 kWhth/PE). However, energy for sewage sludge drying exceeds energy recovery, unless solar drying is performed. 2 The annual solar drying potential is estimated between 450–750 kgDM/m of solar drying surface. The lower heating value of dried sewage sludge is 2–3 kWh/kgDM and this energy can be used for assisting sludge drying or for energy generation and supply to WWTPs. Sewage sludge can be considered a renewable energy source and its incineration generates substantially lower greenhouse gases emissions than energy generation from fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste
    Global Methane Initiative Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste Updated: October 2016 1 About This Presentation . Introduces the process of anaerobic digestion (AD) for municipal solid waste (MSW) . Provides an overview of anaerobic digestion microbiology . Helps you understand how you might benefit from AD . Guides you through the key areas to consider when developing an AD project . Reviews the status of AD globally and provides selected case studies Using Bookmarks to Navigate This presentation contains bookmarks to help you navigate. Using the panel on the left, click the bookmark to jump to the slide. For Chrome users, the bookmarks can be viewed by clicking on the bookmark icon ( ) at the top right of the screen. 2 Global Methane Initiative GMI is a voluntary, multilateral partnership that aims to reduce global methane emissions and to advance the abatement, recovery and use of methane as a valuable clean energy source. OBJECTIVES BENEFITS . Reduce anthropogenic methane . Decline in methane concentrations emissions and advance the and methane utilization will result recovery and use of methane in: while: – Sustainability – Enhancing economic growth – Energy security – Promoting energy security – Health and safety – Improving local air quality – Profitability and public health. 3 GMI Partners . Grew from 14 to 42 Partner governments, plus the European Commission . Accounts for nearly 70% of global anthropogenic methane emissions 4 Main Menu 1. Introduction – what is AD and why should it interest me? Click here for an introduction to AD 2. Is AD suitable for me? Click here for more info about the potential for AD 3. Step-by-step guide Click here for detailed information about the key issues to consider when developing an AD project 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Biowaste Management in Europe Results of a Pre-Feasibility Report for a Facility for Organic Waste Recycling in South Backa Waste Management District - Serbia
    Biowaste Management in Europe Results of a Pre-feasibility report for a facility for organic waste recycling in South Backa Waste Management District - Serbia Marco Ricci - Jürgensen Altereko sas on behalf Abt associates About myself • 20 years of experience in planning MSW management, designing and up¬grading of collection and transport schemes, assessing recycling facilities (focus on composting), planning comunication and participation initiatives, chairing multi-linguistic, multi-tasking working groups or projects. • 15 year foreign working experience as consulting expert focusing on issues related to solid waste management. Extensive consultancy experience in the Solid Waste Sector – on Strategy and Policy, Fees&Taxes, Separate collection schemes - , both in ´advanced´ and ´low to middle income’ countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia. • 10 years experience cooperating with international organisation/agencies (as ECN-European Compost Network, ACRR, EEA- European Environment Agency, Sweepnet-GIZ, SCOW). About myself About myself CIC Italian Composting and Biogas Association Senior Expert www.compost.it ISWA International Solid Waste Association Chair of the Working Group on Biological Treatment of Waste www.iswa.org Ecomondo International Fair Ambassador en.ecomondo.com Activities (outside Italy) Bulgaria Czech Republic Slovak Republic UK Spain Tunisia/Sweep-Net Brazil Cambodia Chile Overview • What is biowaste? • Biological treatment options • From City Assessment to Pre-feasibility investigations • South Backa WMR – scenarios
    [Show full text]
  • Full Scale Co-Digestion of Wastewater Sludge and Food Waste: Bottlenecks and Possibilities
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Engineering and Information Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences - Papers: Part A Sciences 1-1-2017 Full scale co-digestion of wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities Long D. Nghiem University of Wollongong, Technical University of Munich, [email protected] Konrad Koch Technische Universitat Munchen, [email protected] David Bolzonella University of Verona Jörg E. Drewes Technical University of Munich, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/eispapers Part of the Engineering Commons, and the Science and Technology Studies Commons Recommended Citation Nghiem, Long D.; Koch, Konrad; Bolzonella, David; and Drewes, Jörg E., "Full scale co-digestion of wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities" (2017). Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences - Papers: Part A. 6423. https://ro.uow.edu.au/eispapers/6423 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Full scale co-digestion of wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities Abstract Wastewater treatment plants in many countries use anaerobic digesters for biosolids management and biogas generation. Opportunities exist to utilise the spare capacity of these digesters to co-digest food waste and sludge for energy recovery and a range of other economic and environmental benefits. This paper provides a critical perspective for full-scale implementation of co-digestion of food waste and wastewater sludge. Data compiled from full-scale facilities and the peer-reviewed literature revealed several key bottlenecks hindering full-scale implementation of co-digestion.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Waste Economic Values Analysis Summary Report
    Environment Protection Authority Consultancy report: Organic waste economic values analysis Summary report This report has been prepared by consultants for the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA. The EPA cannot guarantee the accuracy of the report, and does not accept liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of relying on its accuracy. Department of Industry and Trade Environment Protection Agency ORGANIC WASTE ECONOMIC VALUES ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT January, 2002 Prepared in association with Access Economics Ref: 3091-01 NOLAN-ITU Pty Ltd ACN 067 785 853 ABN 23 359 240 890 P.O. Box 393 Level 1, 625 High St, East Kew Victoria 3102 Telephone: (03) 9859 3344 Facsimile: (03) 9859 3411 NOLAN-ITU PTY LTD ACN 067 785 853 ABN 23 359 240 890 Melbourne PO Box 393 Level 1, 625 High Street East Kew VIC 3102 Tel: (03) 9859 3344 Fax: (03) 9859 3411 Copyright © Nolan-ITU Pty Ltd 2002 This document is and shall remain the property of Nolan-ITU Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.© Printed on Recycled Paper REF: 3091-01 Document Issue and Status Rev. Status Date Project Manager Reviewer 1-0 Preliminary Draft 18 July 2001 John Nolan Bruno Schacher 1-1 Internal Draft 19 July 2001 John Nolan Sam Bateman 1-2 Draft 10 August 2001 John Nolan Sam Bateman 1-4 Final Draft 13 November 2001 John Nolan Sam Bateman 1-5 Final Draft No.
    [Show full text]
  • INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT for LOCAL GOVERNMENTS a Practical Guide
    INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS A Practical Guide Improving solid waste management is crucial for countering public health impacts of uncollected waste and environmental impacts of open dumping and burning. This practical reference guide introduces key concepts of integrated solid waste management and identifi es crosscutting issues in the sector, derived mainly from fi eld experience in the technical assistance project Mainstreaming Integrated Solid Waste Management in Asia. This guide contains over 40 practice briefs covering solid waste management planning, waste categories, waste containers and collection, waste processing and diversion, landfi ll development, landfi ll operations, and contract issues. About the Asian Development Bank ADB’s vision is an Asia and Pacifi c region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the region’s many successes, it remains home to a large share of the world’s poor. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. Based in Manila, ADB is owned by members, including from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS A Practical Guide ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines 9 789292 578374 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK www.adb.org Tool Kit for Solid Waste Management in Asian_COVER.indd 1 6/1/2017 5:14:11 PM INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS A Practical Guide Improving solid waste management is crucial for countering the public health impacts of uncollected waste as well as the environmental impacts of open dumping and burning.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex E – Approach to Costs
    Imagine the result FINAL REPORT ASSESSMENT OF THE OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF BIO-WASTE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ANNEX E: Approach to estimating costs STUDY CONTRACT NR 07.0307/2008/517621/ETU/G4 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENVIRONMENT ARCADIS Project number – 11/004759 | Version A | 30-11-2009 2/57 11/004759 CLIENT European Commission Directorate-General Environment Mr. Bartosz Zambrzycki Unit G.4 – BU – 5 05/118 B-1049 Brussels ASSESSMENT OF THE OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF BIO-WASTE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION CONSULTANTS ARCADIS Belgium nv Clara Snellingsstraat 27 2100 Deurne Belgium EUNOMIA Research & Consulting 62 Queen square Bristol, BS1 4JZ United Kingdom Contact Laurent Franckx Telephone +32 3 328 62 73 Telefax +32 3 328 62 87 E-mail l.franckx @arcadisbelgium.be Website www.arcadisbelgium.be Assessment of the options to improve the management of biowaste in the European Union – Annex E: Approach to estimating costs 3/57 11/004759 Revision Version Date Remark Final 30/11/2009 Issued by Department Function Name Signature Date ARCADIS, Team leader and Laurent Franckx Strategic Policy senior economist Advice ARCADIS, Senior waste Mike Van Acoleyen Strategic Policy specialist Advice Eunomia Dr Dominic Hogg Eunomia Dr Adrian Gibbs Eunomia Tim Elliott Eunomia Chris Sherrington Eunomia Ann Ballinger Eunomia Siobhan O’Brien Eunomia Debbie Lister Eunomia Catherine Beswick Verified by Department Function Name Signature Date Approval by client Department Function Name Signature Date Assessment of the options to improve the management
    [Show full text]
  • Proof of Concept of High-Rate Decentralized Pre-Composting of Kitchen Waste: Optimizing Design and Operation of a Novel Drum Reactor
    Waste Management 91 (2019) 20–32 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman Proof of concept of high-rate decentralized pre-composting of kitchen waste: Optimizing design and operation of a novel drum reactor Myrsini Sakarika a, Marc Spiller a, Robin Baetens b, Gil Donies a, Jolan Vanderstuyf c, Kathleen Vinck d, ⇑ Karl C. Vrancken a,e, Gregory Van Barel d, Els Du Bois c, Siegfried E. Vlaeminck a, a Research Group of Sustainable Air, Energy and Water Technology, Department of Bioscience Engineering, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium b Energy and Materials in Infrastructure and Buildings (EMIB) Group, Department of Electromechanics, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium c Optical Metrology, 3D Design and Mechanics (Op3Mech) Group, Department of Electromechanics, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium d Product Development Group, Department of Product Development, University of Antwerp, Ambtmanstraat 1, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium e VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium article info abstract Article history: Each ton of organic household waste that is collected, transported and composted incurs costs (€75/ton Received 10 January 2019 gate fee). Reducing the mass and volume of kitchen waste (KW) at the point of collection can diminish Revised 29 March 2019 transport requirements and associated costs, while also leading to an overall reduction in gate fees for Accepted 23 April 2019 final processing. To this end, the objective of this research was to deliver a proof of concept for the so- Available online 29 April 2019 called ‘‘urban pre-composter”; a bioreactor for the decentralized, high-rate pre-treatment of KW, that aims at mass and volume reduction at the point of collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Services 2013
    Waste Management Services 2013 The OECD Competition Committee debated Waste Management Services in October 2013. This document includes an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: a background note, written submissions by Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, BIAC as well as an aide-memoire of the discussion. Technological and policy changes have altered the economics of waste collection and treatment. Landfills are further away from cities and larger. More waste is diverted towards treatments that allow to re-use it, recycle it, or to recover energy from it. Secondary raw materials derived from recycled waste are being increasingly sought afters, as primary raw materials are becoming scarcer and more expensive. Producers have been made responsible for the products they have put on the market at the post-consumer stage of the products’ life. All these changes are raising new competition issues, some relative to the conduct of firms operating in the markets for the management of waste, some raised by the ever-increasing amount of environmental legislation. This legislation is aimed at protecting the environment and the health of citizens, but may sometimes raise unnecessary barriers to competition and thus reduce the incentives towards efficiency. This Roundtable examines recent developments in the management of municipal solid waste and discusses the experience of competition agencies in addressing the competition implications of these changes.
    [Show full text]